Laserfiche WebLink
M, <br />2. There shall be no outside display of merchandise. <br />3. There shall routinely be no more than two patrons on site at any one time. <br />Facilities to accommodate more than two patrons shall not be constructed. <br />4. The applicant is encouraged to incubate and grow a successful home -based <br />business with the understanding that, if it is necessary to expand in the future to <br />accommodate additional walk -in patronage, the operation will need to be <br />relocated to a commercial area. <br />Mr. Hallan stated he will abstain from the vote and that he had been contacted by a <br />neighbor for clarification between a home occupation and a commercial basis. Mr. <br />Burslie stated that the primary use would need to be residential and the business <br />secondary. This intended use would fit the Home Occupation definition. <br />Mr. Hallan further stated that the Staff Report and Finding of Fact Number 4 refer to <br />attached garages. Neither of the garages is attached to the principal structure. They are <br />both stand alone. Staff was directed to make that change to Finding of Fact Number 4. <br />When Ms. Painter asked about the 6' allowable sign-age, Mr. Burslie stated that both sides <br />of the sign are counted. <br />All members voted "aye ". Motion carried. Mr. Hallan abstained. <br />ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None <br />OPEN FORUM: None. <br />NEW BUSINESS: <br />a. Review of Non - Conforming Structure Ordinance <br />The Planning Commission discussed whether the Ordinance should be amended so the <br />homeowner knows there is structural integrity of the existing structure, prior to applying <br />for a 50% addition. They further discussed the possibility of allowing a 50% addition, <br />then the homeowner demolishing the existing structure to build new at a later date. The <br />Ordinance could be amended or this could become a Conditional Use Permit. <br />Staff was directed to bring back recommendations next month. <br />b. Violation Letters, Discussion <br />Staff explained the Planning Commission had been asked to review the violation letter <br />format as it may be too harsh. The Planning Commission suggested eliminating the <br />reference to the City Code and the potential violation language. The letters could be <br />nicer for first time offenders. Staff was directed to bring back an example next month. <br />MINUTES <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />October 20, 2011 <br />